Confusion in Genesis

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungCatholic86
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YoungCatholic86

Guest
I have read both Genesis and Exodus but am confused about the Church’s interpretation of it since I had always been of the mindset that Genesis is actually true. If it is allegorical, then how, for example, can Jesus be the new Adam if Adam was a fictitious character? Why would God inspire a non-real story instead of the actual creation story? Lastly, at what point does the Book become actually true?
 
A metaphor can be profoundly true without it necessarily being factually true. In other words, it is like a painting. It is multi- layered and teaches something, a deeper meaning. And it is one of the reasons why it has lasted for so long. Usually, in much bible scholarship, the first 11 chapters of Genesis are considered allegorical and not the whole book. It is also ok in Catholicism to take this literally. That being said, there is much in the Bible that is not taken as not true and much that is. This is one of the major factors why we have a Magisterium.
 
While it is true that the Church does not strictly require the faithful to believe the Genesis account in a strictly literal sense, it is also true that a Catholic can indeed believe the Genesis account in a strictly literal sense. The Church essentially teaches that the story is true, but the literary style used in the Bible is not necessarily the same as what we would be familiar with in modern literary style. Indeed it has an allegorical meaning. The Apostle Peter writes of it’s allegorical meaning in his letters. However the allegorical meaning relies on the literal meaning. I highly suggest you read Humani Generis: vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html and I also recommend you listen to a talk entitled “Catholics and the Bible” which you can download for free from biblechristiansociety.com/download/ If you do not wish to subscribe to the mailing list, simply leave the email address blank. I think you’ll find adequate answers in these resources.
 
catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

This is a good place to start.

Also, although it is covered in the tract provided, I want to bring special attention to the words of Venerable Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis:

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.”

Essentially, Catholics must believe that Adam and Eve, did exist and they were the first two parents.

God bless.

-Paul
 
I feel much the same way as YoungCatholic86 and wonder why the Church sometimes tap dances around the story of creation. Moses received the Law from God and recorded it as an official record so future generations would have it…exactly as he received it.

Divinely inspired scripture means exactly what it says otherwise you risk slipping into revisionism, which always diminishes the majesty of God solely for the comfort of man.
 
The first 11 chapters of Genesis are pre-recorded history, and so they describe events – real historical events – using many figurative elements as well as some literal elements. This section of Genesis is not purely and entirely allegorical. We are obliged by faith to hold that God did create all things, that Adam and Eve did exist, and they did fall from grace, that the persons described in Genesis are real historical persons, since they are in the ancestry of Abraham, David, and Christ.
 
We are obliged by faith to hold that … Adam and Eve did exist, and they did fall from grace, that the persons described in Genesis are real historical persons
Well… by that you mean “we had a pair of first parents”, right? In other words, the truth of the first chapters of Genesis includes that God created / ensouled a man and a woman (as opposed to a whole bunch of people), and that these first people fell from grace, and that since they existed, they’re real. Calling them “Adam” and “Eve” is a bit of a stretch (after all, the names mean “from the earth” and “(mother) of all”), but if putting names to them makes it ‘easier’ for you to believe in them, then it’s all good…
 
I have read both Genesis and Exodus but am confused about the Church’s interpretation of it since I had always been of the mindset that Genesis is actually true.
There are many stories in the Bible – for instance, parables, which are stories that Jesus ‘made up’. The stories are still true, though: they express truths about the Kingdom of God, even if the characters in them aren’t ‘real’. So, I think I would argue that Genesis is actually true – maybe parts aren’t historically accurate, but the truth of God’s revelation are in them, through and through!
If it is allegorical, then how, for example, can Jesus be the new Adam if Adam was a fictitious character?
Because there was a first man. That first man fell from grace. Jesus has come along, and reversed the damage done by sin; so, whether or not you call the first man “Adam”, Jesus is the counterpoint to the original sin of the original human!
Why would God inspire a non-real story instead of the actual creation story?
Because the “actual” creation story – the one that would sound like a science lecture – doesn’t tell us everything that the Genesis creation story does. God wanted to teach us certain facts in the creation account, and the Genesis account does that. God was inspiring the telling of salvation history, not scientific history😉
Lastly, at what point does the Book become actually true?
What do you mean by this?
 
I feel much the same way as YoungCatholic86 and wonder why the Church sometimes tap dances around the story of creation. Moses received the Law from God and recorded it as an official record so future generations would have it…exactly as he received it.

Divinely inspired scripture means exactly what it says otherwise you risk slipping into revisionism, which always diminishes the majesty of God solely for the comfort of man.
The Church doesn’t dance around it as much as they simply acknowledge that it is Hebrew storytelling. Hebrew storytelling often used allegory to describe real events.

The Tower of Babel is a good example.

They said to one another, “Come, let us mold bricks and harden them with fire.” They used bricks for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky, and so make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered all over the earth.” (Genesis 11:3-4)*

There probably was a real tower and a real place called Babel, but that wasn’t the point of telling the story.

The use of bricks and stone and bitumen and mortar to “Build a tower with its top in the sky” represents man’s desire to reach heaven by his own ingenuity, and his desire to make himself like God. The serpent told Eve that if she ate the fruit that she would be like God and this is no different - man continuing to want to be like God, but not through God’s power but his own technology, ingenuity. It basically tells us that man exalted himself - that’s the whole point.

In Genesis 2, God allows man to name the beasts. Names in the Bible are extremely important, and we get our identity and purpose from whomever names us. God renames Abram to Abraham. Jesus renames Simon to Peter. Abraham and Peter get their identity and purpose from God whom they serve. The people of Babel however, want to “Make a name for themselves.” This tells us that they served themselves, not God, and that they saw their purpose in gratifying themselves.

A Hebrew who was used to Hebrew storytelling would have understood the deeper meaning and would not have looked at the story as literal events. There probably was a real city of Babel and a real tower, but that is not the point of this Hebrew story. The point here is that man, after the fall, continuing to exhalt himself, continued to want to be like a god. That man thought he had value apart from God and exhalted himself after the fall is absolute truth. Specific events in the story are often only there to help us understand this point.

Rather than dance around the issue, the Church has been very forceful in pointing out specific points in the story where it is not to be taken as pure allegory - our first parents being the obvious example.

-Tim-
 
I have read both Genesis and Exodus but am confused about the Church’s interpretation of it since I had always been of the mindset that Genesis is actually true. If it is allegorical, then how, for example, can Jesus be the new Adam if Adam was a fictitious character? Why would God inspire a non-real story instead of the actual creation story? Lastly, at what point does the Book become actually true?
Your assuming that the Church offically interprets Genesis as allegorical and not historically, which is not correct. There are some within the Church who does not believe its historical, but that’s extremely small in comparison to the last 2000 years of Catholic interpretation.
 
Dogmas of the Catholic Church


  1. *]The Divine Work of Creation

    The Doctrine of Revelation Regarding Man or "Christian Anthropology"

    *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
    *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
    *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
    *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
    *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
    *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
    *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
    *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
    *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
    *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
    *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
    *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
    *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
    *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
    *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
    *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
    *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
    *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
    *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
    *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
    *] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
    *] In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
    *] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)
 
**Science and Human Origins **

Overview Evidence for a purely Darwinian account of human origins is supposed to be overwhelming. But is it? In this provocative book, three scientists challenge the claim that undirected natural selection is capable of building a human being, critically assess fossil and genetic evidence that human beings share a common ancestor with apes, and debunk recent claims that the human race could not have started from an original couple.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I feel much the same way as YoungCatholic86 and wonder why the Church sometimes tap dances around the story of creation. Moses received the Law from God and recorded it as an official record so future generations would have it…exactly as he received it.

Divinely inspired scripture means exactly what it says otherwise you risk slipping into revisionism, which always diminishes the majesty of God solely for the comfort of man.
Can you give an example of the Church tap dancing about anything in Genesis? I’ve never seen it. But I do see tons and tons of tap dancing here. You want tap dancing - I’ve got some links for you!

There are some who post here constantly that the Book of Genesis was symbolically symbolic, in a symbolic way 🙂 And that it is just a story to teach “deeper truths.” Yeah, right.

Peace,
Ed
 
If you died tonight, would the first thing you do is to complain to God about how he inspired the book of Genesis, that it was too hard for you to understand?

The bible is from the start to the finish, a book of faith. The church says you should read it with faith and pray for the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.

To read the bible without faith is the essential limitation of the historical-critical method of analyzing the Bible.

There is no history book that is entirely factual and without bias.

I take the bible as it is, as an inspired representation of truth, be that as it may, embellished, stylized, poeticized, etc.
 
catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

This is a good place to start.

Also, although it is covered in the tract provided, I want to bring special attention to the words of Venerable Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis:

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.”

Essentially, Catholics must believe that Adam and Eve, did exist and they were the first two parents.

God bless.

-Paul
**Great answer. I had asked the same question awhile back after hearing a priest tell an entire congregation that “It’s just a story.” He did this more than once, repeating it in front of children gathered together before they left for children’s chapel. That really bothered me. I posted a question about this on the forums and someone pointed me to the same link you posted above. Thank you for giving us this link. **
 
catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

This is a good place to start.

Also, although it is covered in the tract provided, I want to bring special attention to the words of Venerable Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis:

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.”

Essentially, Catholics must believe that Adam and Eve, did exist and they were the first two parents.

God bless.

-Paul
Thank you for bringing up Humani Generis.

My suggestion is to read all of section #37.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
 
My readings of Jewish commentaries for a couple years now impresses me with the faithfulness and the tenacity of the the Jewish scholars to penetrate the text and absorb the great gifts God has given us in the revelation.

Jews even have a celebration of the gift of the Torah (in the narrowest sense, the first five books of the Bible; in the largest sense, all of revelaton). Oh, that the Catholic Church emphasized this explicitly.

The Jews consider the Torah to be God’s love letter to mankind. Again, this is a sentiment that we should emulate.
 
Do you have to believe in Adam and Eve?

It is not often that I find myself in agreement with Professor Jerry Coyne, but this is one of those occasions. Over at his Website, Why Evolution is True, Professor Coyne has written a lengthy post entitled, Catholics proclaim complete harmony between science and their faith, trot out Aquinas again, in which he cites (without naming me) a post of mine from 2010 on Why Aquinas’ views on Scripture would have prevented him from becoming a Darwinist.
I stand by the conclusions I reached in that post, regarding Aquinas’ views on God, creation and Scripture, and I share Coyne’s sense of indignation with the following statement, made by a prominent Catholic theologian from the University of Oxford and a scientist from the American Museum of Natural History:
Evolutionary biology and faith in God are not incompatible, two professors asserted at the international Rimini Meeting, an event that brings hundreds of thousands of people to Italy.
“A proper understanding of creation, especially an understanding set forth by a thinker such as Thomas Aquinas, helps us to see that there is no conflict between evolutionary biology or any of the natural sciences and a fundamental understanding that all that ‘is’, is caused by God,” Professor William E. Carroll of Oxford University’s theology faculty told CNA Aug. 22…
Professor Carroll was a keynote speaker at the Rimini Meeting, an international gathering organized by the Catholic lay movement Communion and Liberation…
Sharing a platform with him was Professor Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
Unlike Aquinas, I happen to be a Catholic who believes in common descent. However, I know enough about the history of the Church’s teachings on human origins over the last 2,000 years, to realize that some things are not up for grabs for Catholics, as Professor Carroll seems to think they are. The contemporary scientific consensus on evolutionary biology clearly contradicts Catholic teaching on several points – notably, Adam and Eve. I thought I’d assemble the evidence here, and let readers judge for themselves.
As I’ll show below, the Catholic Church is still committed to the view that the human race is descended from a single original pair, Adam and Eve, and from nobody else. I’d also like to mention that Fr. Brian Harrison, a conservative Catholic priest who is Associate Professor of Theology, at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico, has written a two part article entitled, Did Woman Evolve From the Beasts? – A Defence of Traditional Catholic Doctrine – Part I and Part II, has gone further, and argued that argued that Catholics are, to this day, bound to believe as infallible Catholic teaching the proposition that Eve was formed from Adam’s side, and that IF Adam was descended from the animals, the final step in his physical evolution must have been accomplished not naturally, but by supernatural intervention: “Hence, … a last-minute supernatural intervention at the moment of Adam’s conception would have been necessary in order to give his embryonic body the genetic constitution and physical features of a true human being.” Fr. Harrison defends the same view in another article entitled, Did the Human Body evolve naturally? A Forgotten Papal Declaration. As I am not a theologian, I will content myself with presenting the evidence, so that people can judge the matter for themselves. I will say, though, that Fr. Harrison makes a very good case for his view that while Adam may have evolved, Eve was created.

more…
 
I have read both Genesis and Exodus but am confused about the Church’s interpretation of it since I had always been of the mindset that Genesis is actually true. If it is allegorical, then how, for example, can Jesus be the new Adam if Adam was a fictitious character? Why would God inspire a non-real story instead of the actual creation story? Lastly, at what point does the Book become actually true?
I think you’re confusing ‘factuality’ with ‘truth’ here.

Personally, I believe Genesis to be ‘mythology’ par excellence. However, since the words ‘myth’ and ‘mythology’ are more commonly used today in the sense of “stupid lies only stupid kooks would waste their time with,” (when some people say ‘the Bible is a myth’ they often mean it in this sense, unfortunately) I need to qualify what I mean by it.

When I say ‘mythology’ I mean it in the original sense, the sense it is still being used by folklorists: a sacred narrative usually explaining how the world came to be in its present form, in other words “a story that serves to define the fundamental worldview of a culture by explaining aspects of the natural world and delineating the psychological and social practices and ideals of a society.” Myths (in the folkloristic sense) could arise either as elaborated accounts of the ‘factual’ past, as allegories for or personification of natural phenomena, or as an explanation of ritual, and are used to establish models for behavior and that myths may also provide a religious experience.

I believe the same is true for Genesis: I think that these are ‘myths’, elaborated stories of real historical events in the distant past. Just because the accounts are handed down to us in an ‘elaborated’ form, however, does not mean that they could no longer convey truth: does it really matter whether our first parents were really named 'Adam or Ḥawwāh? Do we have to believe the dialogues recorded in Genesis is really what they said to each other, word for word (like a transcript), or for that matter, that they apparently spoke Hebrew? Personally, I don’t think the issue of whether Adam’s name was really 'Adam or something along those lines would have any effect on the ultimate truth that these stories convey: that God created the world, but man disobeyed and fell from grace. And even if somehow, what really happened back then was not totally ‘in agreement’ with what is written with Genesis, it still wouldn’t make the accounts an utter lie or the comparison with Jesus as the new Adam invalid, in my opinion.

In other words, I think that Genesis is mythical and at the same time, true. But that’s just my own personal opinion on the subject. Feel free to take it or leave it.
 
If you died tonight, would the first thing you do is to complain to God about how he inspired the book of Genesis, that it was too hard for you to understand?

The bible is from the start to the finish, a book of faith. The church says you should read it with faith and pray for the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.

To read the bible without faith is the essential limitation of the historical-critical method of analyzing the Bible.

There is no history book that is entirely factual and without bias.

I take the bible as it is, as an inspired representation of truth, be that as it may, embellished, stylized, poeticized, etc.
Amen. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top